In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: battlefield robots

01 May

...are being fired from its territory every two minutes. Jordan Response... Well, yes, he did not restrict the right of the United States under international law to use "our inherent right of national self-defense ... outside of an active battlefield, AT LEAST WHEN the country involved consents or is unable or unwilling to take action against the threat" posed by our enemies. And, yes, international law does not require consent or that the foreign state is unwilling or unable. 39 Denver J. Int'l L. 569, 580-81 (2011). I take issue,...
01.05.12 | |

08 Feb

...don't expect our soldiers to make calls on the battlefield as to whether a defoliant is a chemical weapon, why would waterboarding and torture be any different? Kevin Heller M, Just as we use a reasonable soldier standard (adjusted for rank and experience) instead of a reasonable layperson standard in the context of the defense of superior orders, I think we would use a reasonable CIA interrogator standard instead of a reasonable layperson standard in the context of reasonable reliance on an official statement. And I think it is difficult...
08.02.08 | |

07 Dec

...rely on judgment and training. That is all we have on a messy, ambiguous battlefield of human actors. Some internalize it better than others. Some carry implicit biases that no amount of training can fully expunge. Still, as we have been discussing recently at Lawfare, humans are preferable to machines. Dave Glazier We're being a little quick to leap to conclusions about the use of lethal force against children here, aren't we? True, the article opens with discussion of a US Marine Corps strike against individuals believed to be planting...
07.12.12 | |

21 Jul

...Afghan Taliban soldiers can only be captured in Afghanistan. Of course, when enemy combatants wear uniforms and carry the required ID card, it is easy to prove they are enemy combatants. When the enemy does not follow international law, then proving they are enemy combatants becomes harder. The closer they are to a battlefield, the stronger the circumstantial evidence that they are part of the enemy armed force. Still, it is status as a soldier in the enemy army and not the location of capture that matters. If you can...
21.07.09 | |

04 May

...chilling conclusion that the whole world has become a battlefield. It implicates that AQ-operatives may be liable to similar deadly attacks wherever they are hiding (ok, this time it was Abottabad and the Pakistani government seems to turn the other cheek, but what’s next: Paris? Rome?). I prefer the following (extraterritorial law enforcement) approach: without the obtaining of Pakistani consent, the only reasonable justification the US could put forward for infringing another Sate’s sovereignty, is the right to self-defence (art 51 UN Charter). Apparently, the US had actionable intelligence that...
04.05.11 | |

26 Mar

...two armies face each other across the Panjsher valley. They had been fighting a war long before the US got there. If your legal theory doesn't make any sense when applied to the actual conditions of the conflict on the battlefield, then fix the theory. When you have something that makes sense in 2001 in Afghanistan, then you can project that theory forward to 2009 and ask if it justifies the detention of 250 captured members of the enemy army now held in Guantanamo. Charles Gittings Howard, What absolute nonsense....
26.03.09 | |

21 Jan

...not offer global observers something to consider. The President's statement that security and peace do not require perpetual war adds to a growing number of voices talking about a critical issue. It is a statement that is consistent with wind down of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it remains to be seen how this will play out vis a vis conflicts in Northern Africa, in "Arab Spring" nations, and in the use of drone and other technology that takes US soldiers off the battlefield but leaves others on it....
21.01.13 | |

06 Apr

...rights to "individual, or collective self-defense," under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter! If Hamas continues to launch its rockets from population centers, Israel must take such measures as are feasible to minimize civilian casualties, but is not otherwise required to refrain from responding to threats to its national security. The unvarnished reality is that this conflict will continue until either Israel devastates Gaza in this perpetual war, or the Hamas barbarians succeed on the battlefield, which seems even far less likely to occur! Kevin Jon Heller Mike 71, With...
06.04.11 | |

05 Jul

...certain over the months and years ahead that US Imperialist Tendencies do not come to bear, and that we Rescue, AND Restore Darfur. STAGE #2. THE MASSES OF NONVIOLENT WARRIORS BECOME ENGAGED, ORGANIZED AND DEPLOYED IN THE FIGHTING. For every one of the initial "Marines" (just one riding alone across the battlefield in "Dances with Wolves"/100's walking into swinging clubs in Gandhi's India/100's facing the fire hoses down South - APPENDIX) the numbers multiply: 1,000, 10,000, 100,000. The masses become warriors too. National organizations (Africa Action, Save Darfur Coalition, STAND,...
05.07.06 | |

28 Aug

Diplomatic Gunboat Section 501 expressly includes the Constitution's habeas clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2) and the first nine amendments. One can almost hear an infamous Berkeley law professor say "We looked at that. It's too bad about Section 501 because CNMI would have been closer to the battlefield and further from CONUS. But CNMI is in the 9th Circuit--it would have been a close call." Benjamin Davis This goes back to analyses in the Insular Cases about unincorporated territories and how far the US constitution operates in them....
28.08.08 | |

24 Nov

...international law when protecting human/civil rights, but the U.S. legal system is largely consistent with international human rights standards. The more difficult question is the ownership one. I agree with you that some human rights actors reject outright any system of administrative detention. One goal of my article is to try to persuade them to move beyond their (in my view, ill-founded) position that human rights law requires states to try or release non-battlefield suspects. I suspect that I will not always succeed. Even if some human rights actors continue...
24.11.08 | |

30 Jul

...Further, Congress and the Executive have demonstrated they are too fearful of being seen as soft on terrorism to do anything but create separate and unequal third class processes (separate and unequal third class processes as compared to courts or court-martial procedures in settings where the exigencies (battlefield, occupation space, or no courts open) do not make necessary the traditional role of military commissions). Some people think that separate and unequal third class processes are OK for foreigners (the citizen/non-citizen distinction in the United States is particularly pronounced as I...
30.07.08 | |